En caso de emplear gas cloro, indicar cantidad a emplear.

Seeking knowledge from peers was found the easiest, see Figure 65. While seeking knowledge from superiors was considered the hardest, see Figure 63.

Implications for practitioners (and managers): It might require active design of organizational hierarchy. If maximum knowledge sharing is the objective, then manager should consider flatter structures, cultural expectations that subordinates bring to their roles (especially in multi-cultural work environments), managers own leadership style and personality factors (e.g. openness and extraversion) of subordinates and managers.

Superiors

Histogram of How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors]

7% 4% 38% 27% 24% 1 2 3 4 5

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 N o o f o b s 7% 4% 38% 27% 24%

98 Subordinates

Histogram of How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate]

2%

18%

42%

38%

2 3 4 5

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 N o o f o b s 2% 18% 42% 38%

Figure 64: How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from subordinates? Variables involved: Var. 103..

Peers

Histogram of How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer]

4%

6%

34%

55%

2 3 4 5

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer] 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 N o o f o b s 4% 6% 34% 55%

Figure 65: How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from peers? Variables involved: Var. 104.

As shown in Figure 66 and 67, people found it easier to seek knowledge from peers and subordinates than from superiors. While survey participants found it the easiest to seek for knowledge from peers, seeking knowledge from superiors was considered the hardest.

99 Box & Whisker Plot

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors] vs. How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate]

Mean Mean±SE Mean±1,96*SE How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors]

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate] 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6

Figure 66: Effort to seek knowledge from superiors compared to subordinates. Variables involved: Var. 102, Var. 103.

Superiors compared to peers:

Box & Whisker Plot

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors] vs. How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer]

Mean Mean±SE Mean±1,96*SE How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Superiors]

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer] 3,0 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4,0 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8

Figure 67: Effort to seek knowledge from superiors compared to subordinates. Variables involved: Var. 102, Var. 104.

100

The survey respondents found that it was easier to seek knowledge from peers than from subordinates, see Figure 68.

Subordinates compared to peers: Box & Whisker Plot

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate] vs. How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer]

Mean Mean±SE Mean±1,96*SE How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Subordinate]

How easy do you find it to seek knowledge from [Peer] 3,8 3,9 4,0 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 4,6 4,7

Figure 68: Effort to seek knowledge from superiors compared to subordinates. Variables involved: Var. 103, Var. 104.

101

4.2 I

Based on the answers given and the position the survey participants had in their companies, the involvement in NPD processes was rated. Most participants were involved to a great or very great extent in NPD; hence, their opinions are important for this research. See Appendix D for detailed interview results.

Awareness of KM (or lack thereof)

Through the interviews it was found that communication was considered highly important within companies or organizations. All participants answered „definitely yes‟. This result supports the findings of a previously conducted survey by Pons („Project management for professional engineers‟, Pons 2010, research poster presented at 2010 PMI conference in Wellington). It is interesting that 8 out of the 14 respondents (see gray answers) mentioned at least one KM process when being asked what they associated with communication. That implicates that many people might associate certain parts of KM with communication itself. While Pons‟ survey pointed out the importance of communication for engineering companies, KM was considered not very important. Maybe the term „knowledge management' is not very well known. The interviews supported this assumption. Most people seemed to not be familiar with the term „knowledge management‟. Only four interviewed people were sure that they had heard of the term before. Thus it is likely that it is not well known among practitioners. However, all interviewed people, apart from one, found that knowledge management was important for their business to great or very great extent. This shows the importance of KM for NPD companies and engineers involved in the process, thus it is critical to optimize KM practices for the highest possible organizational success.

Personalization strategy with codification strategy support

When being asked which KM strategy people preferred, there was a tendency towards the personalization strategy. Participants felt that the depth of knowledge which can be transferred was higher. The main advantage of codification according to the interview participants was that knowledge was accessible all the time and that personal relationships were irrelevant for the sharing process. However, besides the personal preference of a particular strategy, it was interesting to see that most people pointed out the importance of both strategies supporting each other. No company seemed to put all their emphasis only on one of the two approaches. In companies that applied the personalization strategy a database was either used to find relevant information to acquire common knowledge about a particular topic for discussions or meetings, or to find experts within the organization. In companies where the emphasis was put on the codification strategy, meetings were

102

still important to further discuss knowledge and work on critical problems. Also employees would approach co-workers to find relevant knowledge in databases. In general both strategies seemed to support each other in every interviewed company.

Management support and culture

Regarding important factors for successful KM the interview results showed that management awareness of KM is essential for its success. Every participant who found that their company used a successful or very successful approach said that management set direction and that there were standards for knowledge sharing. Databases needed to be kept tidy, and in most cases there were people responsible for this particular task. Moreover training or assistance to use the databases efficiently was found important, as well as sophisticated tools to search for knowledge. Formal meetings seem to be important to enforce knowledge exchange between employees of one department or project team, and also between different departments. Overall a culture that encourages knowledge sharing and a clear strategy on how this is to be done seem critical for KM success. The suggestions to improve knowledge management processes varied between participants. One of the most significant issues seems to be a low awareness of KM, its importance and benefits not only among management, but also among staff. While time and a low priority were mentioned a few times, some people also found that co-workers had a low motivation or willingness to share their knowledge. A possible reason for that could be personality factors (e.g. maintaining a certain position as an expert within the organization) or simply a low awareness of the benefits of sharing knowledge.